|
Enjoying Your Work Richard Brislin |
Excellence in one position
should not guarantee
promotion"I think it's time we gave Matt a promotion," the vice president of an insurance firm told other executives at their weekly meeting. "I have in mind that he supervise all agents in our life insurance division."
Matt Bartlett had been one of the most successful salespersons in the company. He had consistently placed in the top five agents in based on policies sold each year, had opened up areas of the city where the firm had previously been unsuccessful, and had a good reputation for follow-up service with clients. Only one of the executives at the meeting had reservations. She said, "I hope we don't fall prey to the Peter Principle with this promotion."
This principle of bureaucracy, formulated by Laurence Peter, states that people in an organization will be promoted to their level of incompetence. The principle assists in answering the question, Why doesn't anything work very well around here?
People are hired in an organization and perform well in their entry-level jobs. Some are promoted, even though their new jobs involve skills that they did not necessarily demonstrate in their entry-level positions. This process of job performance and promotions continues until people take positions where they demonstrate incompetence. Because of their poor job performance, they will no longer be candidates for promotion. However, it is very difficult to demote employees in a bureaucracy, especially if their jobs have union protection. So, according to the principle, managers and executives in an organization eventually take on jobs where they will perform poorly.
While formulated with tongue planted firmly in cheek, this principle does seem to capture the career development of people who had good reputations prior to poor performance in their current positions. In Matt's case, for example, there is no guarantee that the skills he demonstrated as a salesman will lead to good performance as a supervisor. As a sales agent, he would develop good networks in a community, would approach clients, would tailor his sales message to the different needs of clients, and so forth. As a supervisor, he would participate in the selection of agents, would oversee their training and would make judgments about subordinates' progress in their work. There is no automatic carryover from skills demonstrated as a sales agent to those needed as a supervisor. Matt might find himself in a position where he cannot demonstrate satisfactory job performance.
While there are no guaranteed solutions, the dangers of the Peter Principle can be addressed if executives recognize potential dangers. One approach is to use situational interviews when making decisions about promotions. Matt would be asked to place himself in situations likely to arise if he became a supervisor. An executive might ask, "What would you do if you received several complaints about the follow-up service provided by one of your salespeople?" Or, "If you identify a specific reason an agent is doing poorly, such as difficulties in closing sales, what would you do?" There are no automatic correct answers, but executives could judge whether Matt has thought about such questions and if he is prepared to move from excellence as a sales agent to excellence as a supervisor.
See the Columnists section for some past articles.
The purpose of this column is to increase understanding of human behavior as it has an impact on the workplace. Given the amount of time people spend at work, job satisfaction should ideally be high and it should contribute to general life happiness. Enjoyment can increase as people learn more about workplace psychology, communication, and group influences.
Richard Brislin is a professor in the College of Business Administration, University of Hawaii. He can be reached through the College Relations Office: cro@cba.hawaii.edu